1
Working Papers in
Urban Language & Literacies ______________________________________
Paper 72
Social status relations and enregisterment in contemporary Copenhagen
Lian Malai Madsen (University of Copenhagen)
2011
2
Social status relations and enregisterment in contemporary Copenhagen
Lian Malai Madsen
University of Copenhagen
1. Introduction
According to recent Danish sociolinguistics, cultural levelling has been the major development
in Danish society during the 20th century (e.g. Kristiansen & Jørgensen 2003, Kristiansen
2009). As a result, we currently find relatively little variation in socio-economic and
educational status among the Danes compared to similar Western settings. Furthermore,
linguistic development in Denmark since the 1900s is characterised by a radical linguistic
standardisation. Kristiansen (2009:168) suggests that Danish today is possibly more
homogeneous than any other language with millions of speakers. The broader development
towards linguistic and cultural levelling in Danish society has influenced and been influenced
by a strong conservative standard ideology (e.g. Kristiansen1998, 2003). This ideology governs
language attitudes and policies evident in societal and political discourses, media practices, and
educational politics. Currently, there is very little grammatical variation within speech
observed around the country. Local “accents” are signified primarily by prosodic colouring,
and the existing variation in segmental phonology is strongly dominated by developments
within and spread from Copenhagen speech (Kristensen 2003, Kristiansen 2009).
However, as recent studies of interaction, language attitudes, and language ideologies show
(Madsen 2008, Jørgensen 2010, Møller 2009, Maegaard 2007, Quist 2005), this does not mean
that young speakers in the Copenhagen area grow up without ideas about linguistic differences
and their related social values. The dialectal and the traditional sociolectal differences might be
close to extinct judging by the number of varying linguistic features observed by linguists, but
speakers are still aware that certain language forms are associated with certain typical speakers
and situations. It is a central part of everyday communication that interlocutors make use of the
wider value associations of linguistic signs to achieve their communicative aims, and only a
few linguistic features are necessary to bring out the wider social connotations of particular
ways of speaking. This means that subtle features like prosodic colouring can still have the
strong effects of signalling, for instance, a rural or an urban persona.
This paper approaches ongoing sociolinguistic processes in Copenhagen by studying practices
of assigning wider social meaning to language use. Drawing on the case study of a group of
adolescents with minority background in contemporary Copenhagen, I focus on their overt
metalinguistic activities. I aim to shed light on how social power differences are refracted in the
metalinguistic activities of these adolescents in spite of the relatively homogenous (or
hegemonic) sociolinguistic conditions of Danish society. I investigate how social status
relations understood as a conception of societal ”high” and ”low” are relevant to ongoing social
value ascriptions to particular speech styles among young Copenhageners.
In section 2, I provide an overview of the accounts of social class in Danish sociolinguistics. In
section 3, I present the empirical focus of my study. I introduce the data and the ethnographic
context of our ongoing project in and around a Copenhagen school, and I briefly consider
Agha‟s (2005, 2007) theoretical framework for understanding situated metalinguistic activities
in relation to wider sociolinguistic developments. In the sections 4 and 5, I discuss the
adolescents‟ explicit metalinguistic reflections on the contrasting ways of speaking they label
3
“integrated” and “street language”. In conclusion, in section 6, I discuss the relationship
between these accounts and their actual language use, as well as the links to similar studies in
other contemporary urban contexts.
2. Social class in Danish sociolinguistics?
Recent Danish sociolinguistics emphasises that the socio-cultural differences within Danish society
have diminished throughout the 20th
century. Of course this does not mean that social class has never
been considered a significant sociolinguistic variable. Brink and Lund (1975) describe the
development of class-correlated variation in Copenhagen speech from the middle of the 19th
century
to the middle of the 20th
. Copenhagen sociolectal differences were characterised by working class
speakers maintaining older forms longer than middle class speakers. The development of Danish
sociolects during the 20th
century is treated in Jørgensen (1980), Gregersen and Pedersen (1991), and
Jørgensen and Kristensen (1994). In a rather rough sense the sound changes in Danish general
standard (”rigsmål”) during the second half of the 20th
century can be described as following a pattern
of shift in Low Copenhagen speech which, with some delay, enters the High Copenhagen speech.
The adoption of Low Copenhagen forms typically started with young High Copenhagen speakers,
and as these speakers grew older, the new forms could be found among speakers of different age
groups. Eventually the new forms spread to the rest of the country and became standard forms
(Jørgensen & Kristensen 1994, Kristensen 2003: 32-33). Because of this development, recent
sociolinguistic studies begin to refer to ”modern Copenhagen” instead of Low Copenhagen and to
“conservative Copenhagen” instead of High Copenhagen (e.g. Jørgensen & Kristensen 1994). These
terms emphasise the new and old-relation rather than low and high-relation. Likewise, studies of
language attitudes employ the labels of ”modern” and ”conservative” to refer to speech samples that
contain features formerly associated with class differences (e.g. Kristiansen 2001, 2009, Maegaard
2005).
The results of recent attitudinal studies teach us that conservative Copenhagen speech (understood by
respondents as ”rigsdansk”, formal standard Danish) is rated high on all social dimensions in overt
judgements, and these overt judgements correspond to dominant language ideologies in policy and
education. In covert attitude studies, modern Copenhagen speech (understood by respondents as
Copenhagen speech) is rated high on social dimensions of ”dynamism”, while conservative
standard-near speech is rated high on ”superiority” (e.g. Kristiansen 2001, Maegaard 2005).
According to Maegaard, speech that was formerly associated with specific socio-economic groups in
society now appears to be associated with the following stereotypic indexical values (Agha 2007):
Conservative Copenhagen (speech containing features traditionally seen as high-status):
intelligence, articulation, ambition, independence, rationality, conscientiousness.
Modern Copenhagen (speech containing features traditionally seen as low-status plus some newer
non-standard features): sociability, happiness, liveliness, youth, ”chic”-ness, creativity
(self-confidence, independence)
(Based on Maegaard 2005, but see similar results in Kristiansen e.g. 2001, 2009)
These results of course suggest that speech styles can be associated with high status in relation to
different social dimensions. Kristiansen even suggests that:
4
“Young Danes are said to operate with two „standards‟ for language use: One for the school,
where excellence is perceived in terms of „superiority‟; and one for the media, where excellence
is perceived in terms of „dynamism‟” (Kristiansen 2009:189).
The different value systems Kristiansen refers to clearly complicate the picture in relation to social
status. Social status within the different social domains of school (and business life) on the one side
and media on the other seems to be related to different (linguistic) resources. Still, Maegaard‟s and
Kristiansen‟s results confirm that values similar to those associated with traditional higher
class-related linguistic codes are relevant within the norm systems related to school. Conservative
standard Danish is associated with elites in relation to intelligence, rationality and ambition. These
values correspond to those associated with for instance „posh‟ in a British context (e.g. Rampton
2006, 2011).
At the same time, however, the most recent work on new linguistic developments in Copenhagen
overwhelmingly points to influences associated with ethnicity and gender (Quist 2005, Maegaard
2007). Ethnicity is considered particularly significant in current sociolinguistic variation because
linguistic innovations are found among young speakers in ethnically diverse communities (see
Torgersen et.al. 2006 for similar findings in London). In what follows, however, I shall argue that the
social status relations sketched above are still relevant. Indeed, if we consider young people‟s situated
language use and metalinguistic reflections, there are good reasons for suggesting that it is an
oversimplication to say that ethnicity is crucial just because it is ethnically mixed groups that
introduce new features.
3. An empirical study of ongoing enregisterment
Since early 2009 we have been conducting a collaborative study of linguistic practices in the
everyday life of grade school children and adolescents in a Copenhagen public school (Ag
2010, Stæhr 2010, Madsen et. al 2010). The overall focus of our research is to understand how
language patterns and language norms are acquired, developed, and used in various everyday
contexts. Most of the participants have a linguistic minority background and they live in a
highly diverse area of the Danish capital. Over 2 years, we have conducted team-ethnographic
fieldwork, and we collect data in a number of different settings: in school during classes and
breaks, in youth clubs, at sports practice, in the local neighbourhood, and in participants‟
homes. The data include field diaries, largely unstructured qualitative interviews with the
participants in groups and individually, as well as with teachers, parents, and club workers.
We also record different kinds of conversations, both researcher-initiated and participants‟
self-recordings. In addition, we collect written data in the form of student essays and
protocols, and we have access to the participants‟ face book activities. In my work, I focus
primarily on a smaller number of key participants. These include five girls and four boys all
with a minority background.
According to Agha (2005), macro-level sociolinguistic developments cannot be understood
without engagement with micro-level language use in interaction. It is the situated semiotic
activities of language users which over time shape the broader socio-historical development of
language as social practice. Agha‟s notion of register refers to repertoires of performable signs
linked to particular stereotypic indexical values through enregisterment, which he defines as:
5
“processes and practices whereby performable signs become recognized (and regrouped)
as belonging to distinct, differentially valorized semiotic registers by a population”.(2007:
81)
Hence, in interactional use of resources associated with different registers, the stereotypic
indexical values of the registers can be said to be brought into play and used for situational
purposes. At the same time, the employment of linguistic resources continuously contributes to
their enregisterment, and in this sense the indexical values of the linguistic features used are
also (re)created.
The study of registers, according to Agha (2007: 150), relies on acts of metapragmatic
typification by language users. The construction, maintenance, and development of a register
involve users‟ overtly explicit evaluations, labelling, and descriptions of the register as well as
their use of its characteristic features. Agha argues that encounters with registers are:
“encounters in which individuals establish forms of footing and alignment with voices
indexed by speech and thus with social types of persons, real or imagined, whose voices
they take them to be” (2005:38).
The extracts in focus in the following sections are examples of encounters with registers that
bring out explicitly the relationship between speech, voice and type of persona. The extracts I
discuss are predominantly from the interviews with the key participants, and I discuss aspects
of content as well as performance (specifically what could be described as exemplifying or
demonstrating stylisations) during sequences characterised by overt metalinguistic reflection.
The researcher has initiated the topic of language by typically asking ”in what way” or ”how”
the participants talk in various contexts (for instance with the teachers, with friends, in the
youth club etc.). The participants introduced labels for two ways of speaking that differed
from what they referred to as “normal”. One was “integreret” (integrated), and I discuss this
register in section 4. The other register was referred to with varying labels: predominantly
“gadesprog” (street language), but also “perkeraccent” or “perkersprog” (equivalent to paki
accent or language), “perker attitude” (equivalent to paki attitude), or “slang” (slang).
”Perker” is originally a derogative term used about immigrants, equivalent of ”paki” or
”nigger”. In in-group use, however, the term refers to a social category defined by ethnic
minority status (in relation to the Danish mainstream society) across various ethnicities.
Moreover, in local in-group use ”perker” also invokes values of toughness and
street-credibility (Madsen 2008: 214). In spite of the different naming practices, there was
general agreement in the reports on characteristic features of this register, and these I discuss
in section 5. I supplement the analyses of the interview sequences with extracts from the
written essays on “language in my everyday life” (essays 1) and “rules of language use”
(essays 2). I have taken the entire corpus of written essays from the students in the two grade
school classes into consideration.
All interview extracts are transcribed according to the conventions presented in the appendix.
The original transcripts are presented in the left column and the English translations are
presented in the right column. When utterances contain English features in the original
version, this is marked by italics in the translation. Stylisations are in bold and reported
speech is surrounded by speech marks.
6
4. Integrated
“...some of my teachers also speak integrated Danish” (Female, 14)
“...when I speak to my teachers then I speak integrated (...) my teachers speak integrated to me” (Female, 14)
“To the teachers, I admit, I use some integrated words” (Female, 14)
(Translated quotes from the participants‟ written essays 1 on “language in my everyday life”)
During the interviews we avoided suggesting linguistic labels ourselves. Instead we initiated
discussion about how the participants spoke in different contexts. Integrated speech was mainly
presented as the way of speaking to adults, especially to and by teachers. In extract 1, Lamis
explains to the interviewer how she used to speak in different ways to the teachers and her
friends at school, but how she now attempts to speak and write integratedly:
Extract 1: More fine words and more long words
Lamis (Lam), Female, 14, Tunisian background. Interviewer (And), Male, late 20’s,
Danish background.
7
Original
1 And: nej så: (.) så nu taler du
2 hvordan var det du sagde du
3 talte over for dine lærere
4 var det [bare]
5 Lam: [xxx]
6 And: sådan altså fordi du sagde
7 før [der var der]
8 Lam: [integreret]
9 And: sådan (.) ja
10 Lam: [bare integreret]
11 And: [altså før var der] sådan
12 forskel og nu taler du
13 integreret
14 Lam: mm (.) jeg er også begyndt
15 når jeg skriver så skriver
16 jeg meget integreret
17 And: mm hvordan gør man det
18 Lam: altså man bruger alle mulige
19 altså øh før i tiden så ville
20 jeg aldrig bruge ordet for
21 eksempel ’udtalelser’ eller
22 øh ’det er uacceptabelt’ eller
23 noget det er jeg begyndt at
24 gøre nu ’det er uacceptabelt
25 det du gør’ før ville jeg sige
26 ’hvad er det du laver du er en
27 idiot fordi du gør sådan’
28 eller et eller andet så ville
29 jeg sådan lave nogle helt
30 andre ord men nu der er jeg
31 meget at bruge mere fine ord i
32 stedet [for]
33 And: [ja]
34 Lam: og mere lange ord
35 And: okay og det er integreret
36 Lam: mm
Translation
1 And: no so: (.) so now you talk
2 how was it you said you
3 talked in front of your
4 teachers was it [just]
5 Lam: [xxx]
6 And: like right because you
7 said before [there was]
8 Lam: [integrated]
9 And: like (.) yes
10 Lam: [just integrated]
11 And: [like before there] was like
12 a difference and now you
13 talk integrated
14 Lam: mm (.) I have also started
15 when I write then I write
16 very integratedly
17 And: mm how do you do that
18 Lam: like you use all sorts of
19 like eh before then I would
20 never use the word for
21 example ‘statements’ or eh
22 ‘it’s unacceptable’ or
23 something I have started to
24 do that now ‘it’s unacceptable
25 what you’re doing’ before I
26 would say ‘what are you doing
27 you’re an idiot because you
28 do that’ or something then
29 I would make some completely
30 different words but now I
31 have started using more fine
32 words [instead]
33 And: [yes]
34 Lam: and more long words
35 And: okay and that’s integrated
36 Lam: mm
In this sequence Lamis claims to (generally) speak integrated (she had previously stated that she
mainly used this way of speaking to teachers). She continues to explain how she has started to
write very integratedly. According to Lamis‟ representation, integrated writing and speaking is
signified by more “fine” (or „posh‟) words, and longer words such as “statements” or
“unacceptable” (line 21-34). Lamis‟ emphasis on relatively complex and abstract vocabulary as
an important feature of the integrated register is also evident in extract 2, where Selma‟s
stylised performance also reveals other associated values:
Extract 2: Have you had a nice day?
Lamis (Lam) in group interview with Selma (Sel), Female, 14, Turkish background;
Yasmin (Yas), Female, 14, Pakistani background; Tinna (Tin), Female, 14, Icelandic
background; Interviewer (Lia), Female, early 30’s, Danish background.
8
Original
1 Lia: hvad taler I så med lærerne
2 i skolen
3 Lam: integreret
4 Sel: integreret
5 Lia: [integreret]
6 Sel: [vil du] gerne bede om en
7 kop te hhh
((shrieky high pitched voice))
8 Lam: hhh nej der bruger man de
9 der integrerede ord
10 Sel: der [prøver xxx]
11 Lam: [nogle gange]nogle gange
12 når jeg har trip over
13 lærerne så taler jeg det der
14 gadesprog
15 Lia: hvad øh kan du give
16 eksempler på integreret
17 Yas: [integration]
18 Sel: [sådan der] [hvad] laver du
19 Lam: [int]
20 Yas: hhh
21 Sel: har du haft en god dag
((stylised shrieky high
pitched voice))
22 Lam: nej nej nej ikke sådan noget
23 ikke sådan noget sådan noget
24 hvor de kommer med
25 [rigtig rigtig]
26 Sel: [god weekend]
((shrieky high pitched))
27 Lam: rigtig svære ord
28 Yas: mm
29 Sel: sådan der rigtig
30 Lam: (.)nej nej[nej]
31 Sel: ’[ube]høvlet’ hhh
((deep voice))
32 Lam: ja hhh [og sådan der]
33 Lia: [det lyder rigtigt]
34 Lam: ’det så uaccep[tabelt Lam]’
35 Yas: [ja men også]
36 [xxx]
37 Sel: [åh jeg]kan ikke engang sige
38 det jeg har øvet mig foran
39 spejlet derhjemme
Translation
1 Lia: then what do you speak with
2 the teachers at school
3 Lam: integrated
4 Sel: integrated
5 Lia: [integrated]
6 Sel: [would you] like to have a
7 cup of tea hhh
((spoken in a shrieky high
pitched voice))
8 Lam: hhh no there you use all
9 those integrated words
10 Sel: there [tries xxx]
11 Lam: [sometimes] sometimes
12 when I have a trip about the
13 teachers then I speak that
14 street language
15 Lia: what eh can you give
16 examples of integrated
17 Yas: [integration]
18 Sel: [like][what]are you doing
19 Lam: [int]
20 Yas: hhh
21 Sel: have you had a nice day
((spoken in a stylised
shrieky high
pitched voice))
22 Lam: no no no nothing like that
23 nothing like that more like
24 where they come out with
25 [really really]
26 Sel: [have a nice weekend]
((shrieky high pitched))
27 Lam: really difficult words
28 Yas: mm
29 Sel: like this really
30 Lam: (.)no no[no]
31 Sel: ‘[im]pertinent’ hhh
((spoken in a deep
voice))
32 Lam: yes hhh [and like that]
33 Lia: [it sound really]
34 Lam: ‘it’s so unaccep[table Lam]’
35 Yas: [yes but also]
36 [xxx]
37 Sel: [oh I] can’t even say it I
38 have practiced in front of
39 the mirror at home
When the girls are asked how they speak to their teachers, they claim to speak integratedly. An
exception to this may occur when they are angry with the teachers or ”have a trip” as Lamis puts it. In
such situations “street language” may be used (line 12-14). Selma demonstrates throughout the
sequence, integrated speech with a stylised performance marked by a shrieky, high-itched voice (in
bold line 6-7, 18, 21 & 26). In her performance she emphasises politeness with ritual phrases such as:
"have a nice day", "have a nice weekend”, and ”would you like to have some tea?". The politeness,
the tea offer, and the high-pitched shrieky voice bring about stereotypical associations of higher class
cultural practices. As in the extract above, Lamis underlines so-called "difficult words" as the
9
significant trait of integrated speech (line 27), and Selma supports with the example of "impertinent"
in line 31. As well as being exemplified with words like “impertinent” and “unacceptable”, integrated
speech is related to reprimands or corrections of behaviour typically performed by authority figures.
So integrated speech appears associated with authority, control and aversion to rudeness, combined
with ritual politeness and higher class cultural practices.
More generally, when examples of vocabulary are presented in the interview accounts and the written
essays, four main aspects are emphasised. About half of the examples in the essays are related to
academic activities (e.g. “analyse”, “criticise”, “argue”, “curriculum”, “lecture”). The other half are
almost equally divided between ritual politeness (e.g. “have a nice day”, “you‟re welcome” etc.),
relatively complex and abstract adjectives (e.g. “hypothetical”, fascinating”, “intelligent”, “well
organised”), and finally, corrections of behaviour as above.
With respect to the stylisations in extract 2, it is worth noting that the integrated performance is
accompanied by quite a bit of ridicule in the girls‟ representations, detectable for instance in the
change of voice and the laughs following the examples of difficult words (line 31-32). In this manner
the girls present a certain distance to this register, and this is emphasised by Selma‟s jocular remark
on not being able to “say it” in spite of practicing the difficult words “in front of the mirror” (line
37-39).
In fact there are significant differences in the way the girls relate to the integrated register in their
constructions during the interviews, and this appears to correspond to their school orientation more
generally. Overall, Lamis and Yasmin (and Selma up to a point) presented a positive orientation to
academic work and school achievement, both in their everyday social practices at school as well as in
their representations in interviews. Although they ridiculed integrated speech in their stylised
performances and did not present integrated as their ”own” way of speaking (with the possible
exception of Lamis in the individual interview, extract 1), they still claimed to use the integrated
register for certain purposes: speaking to teachers (or other adults) and writing in school. In contrast,
there was another pair of girls who didn‟t generally orient positively to school, and they claimed not
to have access to the integrated register, as we shall see in the next extract:
Extract 3: Sometimes we try to be integrated (stylised)
Fadwa (Fad), Female, 14, Iraqi background in group interview with Israh (Isr), Female,
14, Jordanian background; Jamila (Jam), Female, 14, Iraqi background; Interviewer
(Ast), Female, mid 20’s, Danish-Norwegian background.
10
Original
1 Fad: vi prøver at være integreret
2 ligesom dem men det kan vi
3 ikke
4 Isr: fordi vi ikke er vi er ikke
5 gode til alle de der ord de
6 siger
7 Fad: de der svære ord (du skal)
8 forstå sådan hvordan skal
9 jeg forklare dig det øh
10 Isr: ø:h du skal problematisere
11 dine forklaringer på hvad
12 ordet(.) beskyttelse er
((distinct pronunciation))
13 sådan nogle der [ting ikke]
14 Fad: [ja sådan]
15 nogle ting ikke
16 Isr: vi er ikke sådan rigtig gode
17 til sådan noget der
18 [altså at tale sådan noget]
19 Fad: [vi siger vi siger ikke] sådan
20 noget vi snakker ikke med
21 det der problematisere og jeg
22 ved ikke hvad for sådan sådan
23 noget snakker vi ikke om
24 Isr: og du skal [altså også]
25 Fad: [det er det]
26 Isr: kunne diskutere (.) i andre
27 forhold mellem mm xxx
28 [jeg kan ikke]
29 Fad: [ja sådan der]
30 Isr: huske det
31 Fad: kan du se
32 Lia: ja
33 Fad: hun øh hun kan godt øh hun
34 taler på en helt anden måde
35 det er det vi øh det kan vi
36 ikke finde ud af
37 Isr: der er også
38 Fad: men vi nogle gange ikke så
39 prøver vi at være integreret
40 og så prøver vi at snakke
41 ligesom dem
(.)
42 Isr: men det kan vi ikke
43 Fad: for vi for at spille smarte
44 altså ikke
Translation
1 Fad: we try to be integrated
2 like them but we
3 can’t
4 Isr: because we’re not we’re not
5 good at all those words
6 they’re saying
7 Fad: those difficult words (you
8 have to) understand like how
9 shall I explain it to you eh
10 Isr: e:h you should problematise
11 your explanations for what the
12 word (.) protection is
((distinct pronunciation))
13 stuff like [that right]
14 Fad: [yes such] stuff
15 like that right
16 Isr: we’re not really good at
17 stuff like that
18 [like to speak such]
19 Fad: [we say we don’t say] such
20 stuff we don’t speak with
21 that problematise and I
22 don’t know what for such such
23 stuff we don’t talk about
24 Isr: and you also [have to]
25 Fad: [that’s it]
26 Isr: like discuss (.) in other
27 relations between mm xxx
28 [I can’t]
29 Fad: [yes like that]
30 Isr: remember
31 Fad: do you see
32 Lia: yes
33 Fad: she eh she can eh she talks
34 in a completely different
35 way that’s it we eh we
36 can’t do that
37 Isr: there’s also
38 Fad: but sometimes right then we
39 try to be integrated and then
40 we try to talk
41 like them
(.)
42 Isr: but we can’t
43 Fad: to we to play smart
44 like right
Like the girls in extract 2, Fadwa and Israh present examples of integrated words, and these are
related to academic activities (“analyse” and “problematise”), but their self-representations here
emphasise a lack of competence with respect to the integrated register. They say they sometimes try,
but “we can‟t” (line 2-3 & 42), “we‟re not really good at all those words they‟re saying” (line 4-6),
and “we‟re not really good at stuff like that” (line 16-17). Clearly, Israh is perfectly able to perform
examples of integrated speech in the stylisations marked by extra distinctness (line 10-12 & 24-27),
but even so, the two of them jointly emphasise a distance from this register through the references to
“them” (in this context the teachers, line 2 & 41) and “we” (throughout the sequence). This identity
construction is in line with the non-academic personae they practise elsewhere, and in extract 4 from
11
the individual interview, Israh explains how she put on an act with her friends at a school-related
meeting with council politicians. This involved speaking integrated and wearing Fadwa‟s reading
glasses:
Extract 4: Speak integrated and wear glasses
Israh (Isr) with interviewer (Ast).
Original
1 Isr: altså når jeg rækker fingrene
2 op xxx jeg kan godt hviske
3 lidt og tale arabisk og dansk
4 og så når jeg tager hånden op
5 så taler jeg normalt dansk (.)
6 og så nogle gange når vi skal
7 et eller andet til (.) der er
8 også et eller andet hvor de
9 der partier vi var mig Selma
10 og Fadwa og (.) en voksen vi
11 var sammen derovre til et
12 eller andet jeg kan ikke huske
13 hvor det lå det var xxxgade et
14 eller andet o[ver]
15 Ast: [ja]
16 Isr: ved byen hvor der var et eller
17 andet møde med de der partier
18 (.)de kom så jeg ved ikke alle
19 alle mulige [så]
20 Ast: [alt]så politiske
21 partier
22 Isr: ja så prøvede vi rigtig når vi
23 skulle spørge stille
24 spørgsmål så begyndte vi og
25 rigtig at tale integreret og
26 have briller på Fadwas briller
27 hun har sådan nogle hun bruger
28 dem til at læse så tager vi dem
29 på mig og Selma og rækker
30 fingeren op
31 Ast: okay hhh
Translation
1 Isr: well when I put my hand up
2 xxx I can whisper a bit
3 and speak Arabic and Danish
4 and then when I put my hand up
5 I speak normal Danish (.)
6 and then sometimes when we are
7 at something (.) there’s
8 also something where those
9 parties we were me Selma and
10 Fadwa and (.) an adult we were
11 together over there at
12 something I can’t remember
13 where it was it was xxx street
14 something o[ver]
15 Ast: [yes]
16 Isr: by the city where there was
17 some meeting with those
18 parties (.)they came so I
19 don’t know all sorts [so]
20 Ast: [like]
21 political parties
22 Isr: yes then we tried we really
23 when we should ask pose
24 questions then we started we
25 and really speak integrated
26 and wear glasses Fadwa’s
27 glasses she has some that se
28 uses them to read then we put
29 them on me and Selma and put
30 up our hands
31 Ast: okay hhh
It is clear from Israh‟s account that the integrated register here, like in the representation in extract 3,
is not associated with an authentic persona. Rather, speaking integratedly is associated with a part she
plays, in this particular case accompanied by wearing glasses, a practice which stereotypically might
invoke connotations of intelligence and literacy skills (e.g. a “wise” character in media productions is
often indexed by wearing glasses). Israh reports that she employs the integrated register with friends
to (mockingly) address members of the societal power elite, namely politicians. It is also worth noting
that we see the notion of “normal Danish” different from “Arabic Danish” and “integrated” presented
here. Several of the participants refer to “normal Danish” as well as “integrated” and “street
language/slang”. Integrated in this sense appears understood as a relatively marked linguistic code
different from ”normal”.
When we asked the adolescents about speakers of integrated, most of them mentioned teachers, and
initially, also the ethnic Danes among them as typical users. It did turn out after further discussion that
12
in most cases their Danish classmates did not actually use many “difficult words”. However, it
seemed that to the minority students participating in our study, the integrated register was also partly
associated with Danish ethnicity:
“But the integrated language one usually uses to teachers or other adults. It‟s to talk very beautifully and try
to sound as Danish as possible” (Boy, 15, minority background, written essay 2).
In the following extract, Israh explains how she and Selma get a surprised reaction when they put on
their integrated performance because as Israh phrases it, she is “not like a real Dane”:
Extract 5: Not like a real Dane
Israh (Isr) and interviewer (Ast)
Original
1 Ast: men hvordan gør man så det
2 Isr: vi taler for eksempel
3 ’hvabehar’ jeg ved ikke på den
4 måde hhh hhh
5 Ast: okay
(0.2)
6 Isr: jeg ved ikke rigtig øh ja
7 det kommer bare ud af munden
8 Ast: ja
9 Isr: og fordi jeg er ikke sådan
10 rigtig dansker hel hel men
11 derfor så kigger alle sammen
12 de alle sammen kigger på mig
13 og Selma når vi (rykker)
14 fordi vi taler rigtig
15 integreret
Translation
1 Ast: but how do you do that then
2 Isr: we speak for example ‘pardon’
3 me I don’t know like that
4 hhh hhh
5 Ast: okay
(0.2)
6 Isr: I don’t really know eh yes
7 it just comes out of my mouth
8 Ast: yes
9 Isr: and because I’m not like a
10 real Dane complete complete
11 but therefore then everyone
12 looks they all look at me
13 and Selma when we (move)
14 because we talk really
15 integrated
But not all of the participants regarded integrated as predominantly a Danish register. In extract
6, Lamis claims to speak integrated to her parents and to the surprise of the interviewer, she refers to
integrated ” Tunisian”.
Extract 6: Integrated Tunisian
Lamis (Lam) with interviewer (And)
13
Original
1 And: hvad så når du taler med dine
2 forældre hvordan taler du der
3 Lam: ø:h også integreret (.) der
4 viser jeg ikke attitude over
5 for dem eller sådan
6 And: mm mm
7 Lam: ºdet er bare sådan stille og
8 roligtº
9 And: ja (.) taler du nogensinde
10 tunesisk med dem
11 Lam: mm det gør jeg hele tiden når
12 jeg snakker dansk til min mor
13 så siger hun ’tal arabisk’
14 [eller]
15 And: [mm]
16 Lam: ’tunesisk’ så bliver hun altså
17 hun kan jo bedre lide når jeg
18 snakker tunesisk
19 And: ja
20 Lam: der snakker jeg langsomt fordi
21 når jeg snakker dansk så synes
22 hun jeg snakker meget hurtigt
23 And: okay
24 Lam: så hun vil gerne have jeg
25 snakker tunesisk til hende
26 And: mm så integreret det kan også
27 godt være når du snakker
28 tunesisk med dine forældre
29 Lam: mm
Translation
1 And: what when you speak with your
2 parents how do you speak then
3 Lam: e:h also integrated (.) there
4 I don’t show an attitude in
5 front of them or like that
6 And: mm mm
7 Lam: ºit’s just like quiet and
8 calmº
9 And: yes (.) do you ever speak
10 Tunisian with them
11 Lam: mm I do it all the time when
12 I speak Danish to my mum
13 then she says ‘speak Arabic’
14 [or]
15 And: [mm]
16 Lam: ‘Tunisian’ then she becomes
17 like well she likes it
18 better when I speak Tunisian
19 And: yes
20 Lam: then I speak slow because
21 when I speak Danish then she
22 thinks I speak very fast
23 And: okay
24 Lam: so she would like me to
25 speak Tunisian to her
26 And: mm so integrated that can
27 also be when you speak
28 Tunisian with your parents
29 Lam: mm
In this extract, Lamis explains that she speaks integrated to her parents and does not ”show an
attitude” (line 4). Instead, she presents an association of the notion of integrated with the qualities
”quiet and calm”. From the interviewer‟s question in line 9, it looks as though he does not initially
associate speaking integrated with speaking what Lamis has previously labelled ”Tunisian”. Lamis
claims to always speak Tunisian with her parents and it becomes clear during this sequence that the
understanding of integrated presented by Lamis is diassociated from the idea of a specific national
language. Instead, speaking integrated seems related to stylistic adjustments. This understanding is
represented in Lamis‟ written essay as well:
”But slang and integrated are also important, because there is some people who cannot tolerate
listening to slang, then you have to be able to talk to them so that they are comfortable. But
slang and integrated are not just in one language, but they are in English, Danish, Arabic, and
all languages there exist.. :D” (Lamis, written essay 1)
In a few of the essays we also find accounts of the use of ”integrated Arabic”:
”With my family I speak completely normal/integrated Arabic but when I speak to my cousins it
is integrated Arabic. When I speak to my family: I speak normal Arabic to my family, I also
speak integrated Arabic to show respect.” (male, 15, minority background, written essay 2)
”…but with my parents [I]speak integrated Arabic, like polite”
(female, 15, minority background, written essay 2)
In addition, some of the participants referred to Urdu as “the integrated Punjabi”. Finally, it is worth
14
noting that several of the students of majority background also in their essays describe “integrated
Danish” as a register relevant to their everyday encounters particularly with elderly adults and
teachers. This listing of rules of language by a girl of Danish heritage is an example:
“Speak integrated to people you need to show respect for
Speak normal to you relatives
Speak normal/street language to your school friends
Speak integrated to elderly to show respect”
(female, 15, majority background, written essay 2).
These observations suggest that “integrated” practices seem to be undergoing reinterpretation.
Integrated as a term has originally been employed in dominant macro-discourses on ”integration as
minorities‟ adaption to majority society” (e.g. Rennison 2009). So as a term in the Danish context,
“integrated” carries traces of an association with “adaption to mainstream Danish cultural practices”.
Here, however, we see integrated reinterpreted as conservative standard practices (respectful, polite,
up-scale) in a more general sense. In its use among these adolescents, the term is not tied exclusively
to the “foreigner” and “Dane” categorisations typical of dominant integration discourses, even though
it includes an ironic reference to these discourses.
In fact, there is an account in the written essays which explicitly links successful integration (“well
integrated”) to high socio-economic status (“rich”):
“Integrated can be used by everyone, by and large, but if one speaks integrated language one is
considered polite, rich well integrated person because people who speak integrated are like
that” (male, 15, minority background, written essay 2).
From the overt metalinguistic reflections presented in the interviews and essays, we can see that there
is an awareness among these Copenhagen adolescents of a register labelled ”integrated”. The
enregisterment of ”integrated” involves accounts or demonstrations of:
Performable signs: distinct pronunciation, abstract and academic vocabulary (long, fine
words), high pitch, quiet and calm attitude, ritual politeness phrases
Stereotypic
indexical values: higher class culture (wealth), sophistication, authority, emotional control and
aversion to rudeness, academic skills, politeness and respect, (Danishness)
It appears part of a social school-positive practice to present integrated as an available linguistic
resource, and part of a more school-resistant practice to emphasise distance to this register.
A slightly different use of the notion of integrated can be seen in extract 7. Here one of the male
participants employ the term integrated in a characterisation of the young youth club workers with
minority background:
Extract 7: Play really integrated
Isaam (Isa), Male, 14, Arabic background with interviewer (And).
15
Original
1 And: men med dine lærere der taler
2 du med respekt
3 Isa: ja
4 And: hvad så me:d øh hvad så med
5 over for Ilias og
6 Isa: de der de er ba nogle faggots
7 siger jeg bare de er helt væk
8 spiller rigtig integreret når
9 Kirsten er der de der ikke det
10 er nogle faggots no:gle
11 bøssekarler
12 And: og Ilias Ahmed
13 Isa: Ahmed han er også en bøssekarl
14 And: hhh hhh [nå]
15 Isa: [nej] nej de er flinke
16 koran jeg laver sjov de de er
17 gode nok
Translation
1 And: but with your teachers there
2 you speak with respect
3 Isa: yes
4 And: what then abou:t eh what
5 about in front of Ilias and
6 Isa: them they’re ju some faggots
7 I say they’re completely
8 gone play really integrated
9 when Kirsten is there they’re
10 not it’s some faggots so:me
11 faggots
12 And: and Ilias Ahmed
13 Isa: Ahmed he’s also a faggot
14 And: hhh hhh [well]
15 Isa: [no] no they’re nice
16 Koran I’m making fun they
17 they’re nice enough
In this extract, Isaam is asked how he speaks to Ilias and Ahmed in the youth club. Instead of
answering the question directly, he mockingly describes the young minority club workers as
“completely gone” “faggots” who “play really integrated” when the majority adult female youth club
worker, Kirsten, is around. The expression “play integrated” invokes elements of fakeness, and in
addition, the derogative term “faggots” brings out non-hetero-masculine associations. Thus, we
might add ”feminine”, ”homosexual” or at least ”non-hetero-masculine” to the stereotypic indexical
values locally ascribed to the integrated register. Exaggerated feminine associations were also evident
in the girls‟ stylised shrieky, high pitched performance voice in extract 2, and in fact t
gender-associations involved in these ongoing processes of enregisterment become even clearer
when we turn to the register seen as contrasting with integrated, namely “street language”. Indeed,
the relationship of opposition between integrated and street language was crucial to the
enregisterment of each..
5. Street language
“When I am walking on the street and is with my friends then I speak Street language (Paki language) – slang. We
swear diss each other. But we respect each other. We understand each other.” (Male, 14, brackets in original)
“When I am with my friends, I speak street language, slang, paki language” (Female, 14)
“...but not with my friends, then it is just slang” (Female, 14)
“Otherwise it is street language with friends to some from the class I speak normal Danish.” (Male, 14)
(translated quotes from written essays 1)
Street language was generally presented as the register the adolescents used to manage peer relations
in school and leisure contexts. As with integrated, their metalinguistic reflections on street language
often focused on vocabulary.
Extract 8: A little street language-like
Mahmoud (Mah), Male, 14, Maroccan background; Interviewer (And), Male, late 20’s,
Danish background.
16
Original
1 And: hvordan taler du når du er
2 herhenne i skolen hvis du
3 skal karakterisere det
4 Mah: taler jeg lidt gadesprog
5 And: lidt hvad
6 Mah: lidt gadesprogagtigt
7 And: mm
8 Mah: altså med eleverne
9 And: [ja]
10 Mah: [og] med lærerne så er
11 det normalt
12 And: hvad er normalt
13 Mah: som vi snakker nu
14 And: mm hvad er gadesprog så
15 Mah: det er sådan noget hvor
16 du bruger nogle slangord
17 og sådan
18 And: ja
Translation
1 And: how do you speak when
2 you’re here in school if
3 you should characterise it
4 Mah: I speak a bit street language
5 And: a bit what
6 Mah: a bit street language-like
7 And: mm
8 Mah: like with the pupils
9 And: [yes]
10 Mah: [and] with the teachers then
11 it’s normal
12 And: what’s normal
13 Mah: like we speak now
14 And: mm so what’s street language
15 Mah: it’s something where
16 you use some slang words
17 and such
18 And: yes
In extract 8 Mahmoud characterises his street-language-like linguistic practice by the use of slang
words. Isaam in extract 9 below also emphasises slang words in an exemplifying stylisation of street
language:
Extract 9: Then I speak bloody street language ↑ma:n (stylised)
Isaam (Isa); Interviewer (And)
Original
1 And: men (.) hvordan taler du i
2 skolen
3 Isa: integreret
4 And: mm hvad vil det sige
5 Isa: altså jeg taler (.) fint med
6 min lærer og lærerne
7 And: mm
(0.3)
8 And: hvad så: i frikvartererne
9 taler du også integreret der
10 Isa: nej (.) der taler jeg sgu 11 gadesprog ↑ma:n
12 And: taler du gadesprog hhh 13 Isa: heh heh hhh ((laughs))
Translation
1 And: but (.) how do you speak
2 in school
3 Isa: integrated
4 And: mm what does that mean
5 Isa: well I speak (.) fine with
6 my teacher and the teachers
7 And: mm
(0.3)
8 And: so what during recess do you
9 also speak integrated then
10 Isa: no (.) then I speak bloody
11 street language ↑ma:n
12 And: you speak street language hhh
13 Isa: heh heh hhh ((laughs))
In the beginning of this extract, Isaam claims to speak integratedly to teachers, and in fact more
generally, he combined school-positive and streetwise practices in a similar way to the taekwondo
practitioners described in Madsen (2008, see also Stæhr 2010 and Madsen 2011). So integrated seems
to be a linguistic resource available to him. But when he is asked how he speaks with friends he
answers with a stylised performance illustrating significant traits of street language: the swear word
“sgu” (equivalent of ”bloody”), the American slang expression “man” pronounced with American
features (pitch raise and prolongation of the vowel), and prevocalic „t‟ pronounced with affrication
and palatalisation (line 10). The interviewer repeats this t-pronunciation (line 12) and this display of
recognition causes joint amusement. The affricated palatalised pronunciation of „t‟ is a feature
described by Maegaard (2007: 164) as a new pronunciation feature associated with stylistic practices
of “tough ethnically mixed boys” groups. Among the adolescents in the current study, Møller (2009)
and Madsen et al. (2010) find that this t-pronunciation is also a marked feature stereotypically
17
associated with speakers of Turkish background. But otherwise only few of the indexical features
overtly associated by our informants with integrated and street registers were related to
pronunciation. The characterisation of these registers focused largely on vocabulary.
Another significant practice associated with street language mentioned by several participants is the
mixing of features generally considered to belong to different national languages, such as Danish,
Arabic, Kurdish, Spanish, and Turkish etc. In extract 10, Israh describes how making up new words is
considered part of the slang/“perker” (paki) language:
Extract 10: Perker language
Original
1 Irs: uden for skolen der gør vi
2 også vi taler bare slang
4 perkersprog taler normalt
5 altså sådan arabisk dansk
6 bruger alle mulige mærkelige
7 ord i
(0.3)
8 Ast: [jo]
9 Isr: [og] så kommer vi hver gang
10 med nye ord
11 Ast: hvordan det
12 Isr: altså et eller andet vi finder
13 på noget nyt der ligner lidt
14 arabisk og så laver vi lidt
15 omvendt på det
16 Ast: okay
Translation
1 Irs: outside school then we do
2 also we just talk slang
4 ’perker’ language talk
5 normally like Arabic Danish
6 use all sorts of strange
7 words in
(0.3)
8 Ast: [yes]
9 Isr: [and] then we every time come
10 up with new words
11 Ast: how so
12 Isr: like something we make up
13 something new that’s similar
14 to Arabic then we make it
15 opposite a bit
16 Ast: okay
What Israh here refers to appears to be the poly-lingual behaviour documented among Copenhagen
youth in several of our recent studies of situated interactions (Madsen 2008, Møller 2009, Jørgensen
2010, Stæhr 2010, Ag 2010). Poly-lingual practices are central to the street language register in the
adolescents‟ interview reports, as well as in sociolinguists‟ observation of situated speech and in
media constructions (e.g. Quist & Jørgensen 2007).
Based on participants‟ accounts, the linguistic signs and practices associated with street language
include slang, poly-lingual mixing and creativity as well as an example of a particular pronunciation
feature. The value ascriptions related to this register are also brought about in the presentations by the
adolescents. Lamis describes and performs street language in extract 11:
Extract 11: You’re showing off
Lamis (Lam) with interviewer (And)
Original
1 Lam: hvor man sådan meget stiller
2 op
3 And: mm
4 Lam: og de:t viser sig meget frem
5 And: ja
6 Lam: og sådan er tror man er meget
7 stor i det (.) sådan og har
8 meget sådan mærkelig accent
9 hhh sådan uh hvem tror
10 du du er sådan hhh
((deep voice))
Translation
1 Lam: how you like put yourself
2 up front
3 And: mm
4 Lam: and i:t show off yourself
5 And: yes
6 Lam: and like think you’re very
7 big like (.) that and have
8 very like strange accent
9 hhh like uh who do you
10 think you are like that hhh
((deep voice))
18
11 And: ja
12 Lam: sådan den der accent der
13 det er så[dan]
14 And: [mm]
15 Lam: perkeratti[tude]
16 And: [ja]
11 And: yes
12 Lam: like that accent
13 it’s like [that]
14 And: [mm]
15 Lam: ‘perker’ atti[tude]
16 And: [ja]
Lamis does not primarily describe linguistic features when she is asked what street language is like.
She does mention the rather unspecified pronunciation of a “strange accent” (line 8), but otherwise
describes a “perker” attitude of showing off (line 4-5). She performs a tough persona through her
stylised utterance in line 9-10 signalled by the deep voice and the pragmatic function of a challenge,
and this value ascription of toughness corresponds to the use of the register observed in studies of
situated interaction (Madsen 2008, 2011, Stæhr 2010). In these studies, we find that features
associated with street language are predominantly employed in peer interactions concerned with
social negotiations of local status relations. Our studies also suggest that the “perker” attitude and its
associated linguistic practice invoke traditional masculinity, and this chimes with research on similar
linguistic practices in other urban European settings (e.g. “blattesvenska” in Stockholm, Johnsson
2007 or Creole English in Rampton 1995 and Sebba 1993). This association with masculinity does
not mean that the street register is not employed by any females, and the girls who employ it also use
other semiotic resources stereotypically associated with toughness and street credit. For instance,
towards the end of their group interview, Fadwa and Israh, co-construct self-representations based on
narratives about fights they have been involved in, emphasising how hard they have hit their
opponents etc. But the girls who emphasise more traditional feminine values in their identity
practices claim not to use street language at all (although Ag 2010 study of their peer interactions
reveals several instances where the street language features are actually used). In extract 12 we see
another example of a girl distancing herself from street language and its associated tough “perker”
attitude. Six months after the group interview, Lamis is interviewed again and she now explains
how she tries to “remove” her “perker” attitude.
Extract 12: Perker attitude
Lamis (Lam) with interviewer (And)
19
Original
1 And: har du tænk om du fh taler
2 ens i: i forskellige
3 situationer for eksempel
4 når du taler med dine lærere
5 eller dine venner eller din
6 familie
7 Lam: ne:j (ºjeg har ikke) xxxº
8 And: mm mm (.) taler du du på den
9 samme måde når du taler med
10 lærerne og eller når du taler
11 med dine venner
12 Lam: før gjorde jeg ikke men nu er
13 jeg begyndt at gøre det
14 And: mm hvordan var det før
15 Lam: før var jeg sådan meget uh med
16 mine venner og sådan og så
17 foran lærer var jeg sådan
18 stille og rolig og snak rigtig
19 meget dansk men med mine
20 venner der var jeg sådan
21 rigtig meget perkeragtigt
22 And: ja
23 Lam: og nu: øh jeg er begyndt at
24 tage mig sammen for jeg synes
25 ikke det er noget man skal
26 være stolt over hvis man har
27 sådan en perkerattitude (.)
28 det synes jeg ikke man skal
29 være stolt over så jeg prøver
30 faktisk at fjerne det
31 And: [ja]
32 Lam: [og] jeg i hvert fald jeg
33 And: [ja]
34 Lam: [hå]ber i hvert fald det er
35 blevet bedre
Translation
1 And: have you thought about if you
2 fh speak similar i:n in
3 different situations for
4 example when you speak with
5 your teachers or your friends
6 or your family
7 Lam: no: (ºI haven’t) xxxº
8 And: mm mm (.) do you you speak in
9 the same way when you speak
10 with the teachers and or when
11 you speak with your friends
12 Lam: before I didn’t but now I have
13 started to do so
14 And: mm how was it before
15 Lam: before I was very uh with
16 my friends and stuff and
17 then in front of the teacher
18 I was like quiet and calm and
19 talk like very Danish but with
20 my friends I was like very
21 ‘perker’ like
22 And: yes
23 Lam: and no:w eh I have started
24 to pull myself together
25 because I don’t think it’s
26 something you should be proud
27 of if you have such a ‘perker’
28 attitude (.) I don’t think you
29 should be proud of it so I
30 actually try to remove it
31 And: [yes]
32 Lam: [and] I at least I
33 And: [yes]
34 Lam: [ho]pe at least it has
35 become better
In this account, Lamis relates ways of speaking to ways of being: “before I was very uh...” (line
15-21). She further states that she has now pulled herself together - a “perker attitude” is not
something one should be proud of, but rather try to get rid of. Lamis is a student who orients to
academic achievement and she does not see the register associated with “perker” attitude as
prestigious.
In the final extract, Isaam illustrates an identity aspect central to the ongoing enregisterment among
the adolescents, namely the age-dimension.
Extract 13: How do the young speak to each other
Isaam (Isa) with interviewer (And)
20
Original
1 Isa: men men hvis der kommer en
2 anden person der er
3 integreret og siger hvordan
4 er de unge hvordan taler de
5 unge til hinanden
6 And: ja
7 Isa: men vi vi man kan sige man
8 taler sådan (.) for tiden
9 det er helt væk jeg kan
10 bare sige Mahmoud giver mig
11 eller
(0.2)
12 Isa: Mahmoud han siger jeg har
13 ikke flere t yʝggegummi ↑fuck
14 dig forstår du det det er
15 ikke [ne:]gativt
16 And: [mm]
17 Isa: det er bare sådan det er
Translation
1 Isa: but but if some other person
2 comes who is integrated and
3 says how are the young how
4 do the young speak to each
5 other
6 And: yes
7 Isa: but we we you can say you
8 speak like this (.) at this
9 time it’s completely gone
10 I can just say Mahmoud give
11 me or
(0.2)
12 Isa: Mahmoud he says I don’t have
13 any more chewing gum ↑fuck
14 you do you understand it it
15 isn’t [ne:]gative
16 And: [mm]
17 Isa: it’s just the way it is
Here Isaam opposes “ a person who is integrated” to “the young” (line 1-5). He demonstrates the way
“the young” speak by hypothetically quoting himself in interaction with a friend (Mahmoud),
employing the characteristic t-pronunciation and a swear word. He opposes integrated to youthful
behaviour, and this is consistent with the other interview descriptions of integrated as a register
employed by and with adults
So in these accounts “street language” (“perker language” or “slang”) is continuously enregistered in
the following way:
Performable signs: slang, swearing, affricated and palatalised t-pronunciation, poly-lingual
practices, “strange accent”, linguistic creativity
Stereotypic
indexical values: toughness, masculinity, youth, pan-ethnic minority “street” culture, academic
non-prestige
To summarise: The minority girls among my key participants generally present resources of
integrated and street language as relevant to their linguistic everyday practice. The girls who orient
positively towards academic achievements, report a use of the integrated register to teachers, parents,
and other adults. The girls who do not orient towards academic skills report a use of the register only
in jocular ways (and claim to have a limited competence in using “integrated words”). The girls claim
to use the street language register to present an attitude of toughness. In front of the researchers, some
of the girls claim not to use the street language register at all and some girls claim mainly to use it to
address boys. The minority boys among my key participants do not as often mention the integrated
register as part of their linguistic repertoire and they emphasise the use of the street language register
as a peer group practice. Most of the adolescents also present the notion of “normal Danish” which
appears to be a socially unmarked way of speaking. Some participants refer to “normal Danish” as an
alternative to street language and others as a contrast to integrated speech.
21
6. Conclusion
I have now discussed overt evaluations of language among Copenhagen youth, and treated their
metalinguistic reflections as part of the ongoing enregisterment of “integrated” and “street (or
perker) language”. A range of different aspects of cultural practice have been drawn into this:
ways of orienting to academic skills, ways of engaging with emotions, and typical interlocutors.
In fact, the associations of these two registers seem to map on to a set of opposing binaries:
Integrated (majority)/Perker (minority);
High/Low;
Academic/Street cultural;
Polite/Tough;
Reason/Emotion;
Feminine/Masculine;
Adult/Youthful.
These binary value ascriptions allow us to link integrated and street language back to the social
status relations considered at the start of this paper.
The social status relations brought into play by these adolescents is not best understood as
social class in a classical sense of inequality between clearly bounded groups. Rather, it consists
of an awareness of ”high” and ”low” societal stratification, signified by certain cultural and
linguistic practices (see also Rampton 2006). Like other identity aspects, class can be
considered a dynamic concept brought into play in situated interactions. Rampton finds
high/low social class relations refracted in stylisations of “posh” and Cockney alongside and in
complex interplay with Creole and Asian English. In the Danish context, the relevance of social
status relations is not traceable in stylisations or other employments of the traditional Danish
equivalent of “posh” and Cockney, namely “High Copenhagen” and “Low Copenhagen“. But,
as I have demonstrated, the stereotypic indexical values of the “integrated” and the “street
language” registers correspond closely to the values associated with former class-related
registers.
Admittedly, Kristiansen‟s work (2001, 2009) suggests that different norm systems are
potentially in play in the linguistic behaviour of young Danes. In late modernity, social status
may be associated with different resources within different social domains, and the linguistic
style valued in school is not necessarily essential for fame and prestige in, for instance,
television, the radio or the music business. But our data show that the value-system that
Kristiansen associates with school is directly relevant to the enregisterment of “integrated” and
“street language”. Kristiansen doesn‟t consider the sociolinguistic features of “street language”
described by our informants, but our data suggest that the “street language” register has actually
replaced the former “Low Copenhagen” as the contrasting register to conservative standard. It
is also possible that the “normal” way of speaking our participants referred to is equivalent to
Kristiansen‟s “modern Copenhagen”, though this would require further investigation.
The metalinguistic data I have presented points to a significant sociolinguistic transformation.
Linguistic signs that used to be seen as related to migration, identified as ethnic minority rather
majority on an insider/outsider dimension of comparison, are now related to status on a
high/low dimension as well. This is particularly clear in our informants‟ association of
22
“integrated” with a notion of conservative standardness that carries across national language
boundaries. In this way, our data document processes similar to the ones described by Rampton
in Britain (2011), and there are comparable intersections of ethnicity and status relations in
Chun (2011), where the conception of race among American adolescents incorporates aspects
of class (and gender). Jaspers (2010) also shows how in Belgium, minority adolescents‟
stylisations of traditional Antwerp dialect reconfigure its social meaning, so that instead of
simply being associated with hostility to migrants, it is used to spotlight institutional
inequalities, positioning the young people within the dynamics of high/low stratification, not
just inside/outside exclusion. So there is evidence in several countries that linguistic styles once
associated with migration and minorities are being actively mapped into social stratification
and status.
Recent Danish sociolinguistics has suggested that social class relations have relatively little
contemporary sociolinguistic significance, and instead, the discovery of new linguistic
practices among youth in culturally and linguistically diverse environments has led to ethnicity
being foregrounded. But the data I have discussed in this paper shows that high/low
stratification is indeed still relevant to contemporary Danish youth. In the values and privileges
in evokes, “integrated” is enregistered as a conservative standard code, and street-language is
enregistered partly in opposition to this. Social status is profoundly interwoven with ethnicity,
both in the metalinguistic descriptions and in the linguistic labels applied to these registers.
-----------------
References
Ag, Astrid. 2010. Sprogbrug og identitetsarbejde hos senmoderne storbypiger. København.
Københavns Universitet.
Agha, Asif .2005. Voice, Footing, Enregisterment. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 15 (1),
38-59.
Agha, Asif. 2007. Language and Social Relations. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Brink, Lars & Jørn Lund. 1975. Dansk Rigsmål. København: Gyldendal.
Chun, Elaine. 2011. Reading race beyond black and white [forthcoming].
Gregersen, Frans & Inge Lise Pedersen. 1991. The Copenhagen Study in Urban Sociolinguistics.
Copenhagen: Hans Reitzel.
Jaspers, Jürgen. 2010. ”This isn‟t possible anymore”: Indexical shifts in a white urban dialect.
Working papers in Urban Laguage and Literacy 66.
Jonsson, Rickard. 2007. Blatte betyder kompis. Om maskulinitet och språk i en högstadieskola.
Stockholm: Ordfront förlag.
Jørgensen, Jens Normann. 1980. Det flade a vil sejre. En undersøgelse på sociolingvistisk grundlag af
visse københavnske sprogforhold. In SAML 7. Københavns Universitet. Institut for anvendt og
matematisk lingvistik, 67-124.
Jørgensen, Jens Normann & Kjeld Kristensen. 1994. Moderne sjællandsk: en undersøgelse af unge
sjællænderes talesprog. København: C.A. Reitzel.
Jørgensen, Jens Normann. 2010. Languaging. Nine years of poly-lingual development
of young Turkish-Danish grade school students. Copenhagen Studies in Bilingualism. Copenhagen:
University of Copenhagen. Faculty of Humanities.
Kristensen, Kjeld. 2003. Standard Danish, Copenhagen sociolects, and regional varieties in the
1900s. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 159, 29-44.
Kristiansen, Tore. 1998. The role of standard ideology in the disappearance of the traditional Danish
23
dialects. Folia Linguistica 32 (1-2), 115-129.
Kristiansen, Tore. 2001. Two standards: one for the media and one for the school. Language
Awareness 10 (1), 9-24.
Kristiansen, Tore. 2003. Language attitudes and language politics in Denmark. International Journal
of the Sociology of Language 159, 57-71.
Kristiansen, Tore. 2009. The macro-level social meanings of late modern Danish accents. Acta
Linguistica Hafniensia 41, 167-192.
Kristiansen, Tore & Jens Normann Jørgensen. 2003. The Sociolinguistics of Danish. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language 159, 1-7.
Madsen, Lian Malai. 2008. Fighters and Outsiders. Linguistic practices, social identities, and social
relationships among urban youth in a martial arts club. Copenhagen. University of
Copenhagen, Department of Nordic Studies and Linguistics.
Madsen, Lian Malai. 2011. Interactional renegotiations of educational discourses in recreational
learning contexts. Linguistics and Education 22, 53-67.
Madsen, Lian Malai, Janus Spindler Møller & J. Normann Jørgensen. 2010. ”Street language” and
”Integrated”: Language use and enregisterment among late modern urban girls. In Lian Malai
Madsen, Janus Spindler Møller & J. Normann Jørgensen (eds) Ideological Constructions and
Enregisterment of Linguistic Youth Styles. Copenhagen Studies in Bilingualism 55.
Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen. Faculty of Humanities, 81-113.
Maegaard, Marie. 2005. Language attitudes, norm and gender. A presentation of the method and
results from a language attitude study. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 37, 55-80.
Maegaard, Marie. 2007. Udtalevariation og – forandring i københavnsk – en etnografisk
undersøgelse af sprogbrug, sociale kategorier og social praksis blandt unge på en københavnsk
folkeskole. København. Københavns Universitet.
Møller, Janus Spindler. 2009. Poly-lingual interaction across childhood, youth and adulthood.
Copenhagen. University of Copenhagen.
Olwig, Karen Fog & Karsten Pærregaard (eds). 2007. Integration. Antropologiske perspektiver.
København: Museum Tusculanums Forlag.
Quist, Pia. 2005. Stilistiske praksisser i storbyens heterogene skole. En etnografisk og
sociolingvistisk undersøgelse af sproglig variation. København. Københavns Universitet.
Rambøll Management Consulting & Simon Calmar Andersen. 2010. Mehmet og modkulturen. En
undersøgelse af drenge med etnisk minoritetsbaggrund. Copenhagen. Rambøll.
Rampton, Ben. 1995. Crossing. Language and ethnicity among adolescents. London. Longman.
Rampton, Ben. 2006. Language in Late Modernity. Interaction in an urban school. Cambridge.
Cambridge University Press.
Rampton, Ben. 2011. Style contrast migration and social class. Journal of Pragmatics. 43: 1236-50.
Rennison, Bettina Wolfgang. 2009. Kampen om integrationen. Copenhagen. Hans Reitzel.
Sebba, Mark. 1993. London Jamaican: Language Systems in Interaction. London. Longman.
Stæhr, Andreas. 2010. Rappen reddede os. Et studie af senmoderne storbydrenges identitetsarbejde i
fritids- og skolemiljøer. København. Københavns Universitet.
Torgersen, Eivind, Paul Kerswill & Sue Fox. 2006. Ethnicity as a source of changes in the London
vowel system. In Frans Hinskens (ed.): Language Variation - European Perspectives. Selected
Papers from the Third International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE3),
Amsterdam, June 2005. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 249-263.
Appendix
24
Transcription key:
[overlap] overlapping speech
LOUD louder volume than surrounding
utterances
°silent° lower volume than surrounding utterances
xxx uintelligible speech
(questionable) parts I am uncertain about
((comment)) my comments
: prolongation of preceding sound
↑ local pitch raise
(.) short pause
(0.6) timed pause
Stress stress
hhh laughter breathe
mm confirming
mm mm denying
Italics English in original
Bold Stylised utterance